Monday, August 25, 2008

While eyes are on Denver, Secretary Rice has slipped into Jerusalem for the seventh time since November, in an apparent effort to advance an Israeli-Palestinian peace. The goal is a so-called "shelf agreement," which would sketch out the broad lines of a comprehensive treaty (something diplomats and lawyers could presumably finish up).

Rice, writes Haaretz's Aluf Benn, "will have to pave the way between the contradictory viewpoints of her hosts in Jerusalem." It would be truer to say that she has to choose between her hosts' contradictory viewpoints about Jerusalem. For--make no mistake--Jerusalem is the problem, and no amount of patient mediation can advance what an arbitrator's power must. Other core issues, like refugees and territory, are not simple, but they are actually more or less dependent on a larger conundrum, which "Jerusalem" subsumes. Saying that the only problem left for the diplomats is Jerusalem is like saying that the only problem left for a divorcing couple is custody of the children.

THE PALESTINIANS VIEW Arab Jerusalem--its history and charisma--as the organizing symbol (or, at least, the indispensable differentiator) of Palestinian nationalism. They see the ancient mosques, which sit on the Noble Sanctuary, as the focus of their religious piety; many educated Palestinians are secular, but most still look to the local mosque for consolation and pride. As important, Palestinians view the city as the economic hub of West Bank towns--Ramallah, Nablus, and Jenin to the north, and Bethlehem and Hebron to the south--which are really Jerusalem exurbs. Since Palestinians see future economic development as largely depending on tourism, the claim to Jerusalem is also pragmatic. Palestine without return of (read, return to) Jerusalem is unimaginable.

Most Israeli Jews living in and around Jerusalem see their city in almost precisely mirrored ways. About 65% of Jewish first-graders in Jerusalem are ultraOrthodox, and 20% are National Orthodox. They link organically to new Jewish suburbs, where 250,000 Jews live, and to the nearly 175,000 West Bank settlers, about half of whom are either National Orthodox or sympathetic to their rightist parties.

Most of these Israeli Jews see Jewish nationalism as threading back through ancient texts to the birthplace of Jewish law and rites (they see the mosques as a kind of tromp d'oeil for the ancient temple). Like the Arabs, they regard Jerusalem as the hub of a state-within-a-state--many now call it Judea--whose own West Bank towns--Ariel to the north, Kiryat Arba to the south--will wither quickly if the Israeli government stops throwing money at "settlements," and while the Arab city and its exurbs become the places to which 2-3 million Palestinian refugees return.

THERE IS NO compromise possible here. Either Palestine will rise, and Judea will be thwarted, or Judea will continue, and Palestine will be still-born. Orthodox Jewish Jerusalemites feel much like traditional Palestinian Arabs on the coastal plain in 1947, when they saw Zionist towns and villages rising around them and heard leaders preparing the ground for a couple of million or more Jewish refugees.

The difference between now and 1947 is the State of Israel, however. The vast majority of educated Israelis do live on the coastal plain, thanks to the Zionist pioneers, the heroics of the 1948 war, and (let's face it) to the Naqba, what Palestinians call the post-1948 period when hundreds of Arab towns were effaced. Most Israelis, however much they value solidarity, do not really share the aspirations of, well, Judeans. Most are secular. They see their nationalism in terms of a Hebrew revival, not the Orthodox religion. They work, increasingly, in businesses that have global reach, and cultural institutions that absorb Western values. Most of my friends in Tel-Aviv and Haifa find Jerusalem suffocating and don't much visit anymore; they have no desire to see their kids patrolling the settlements for the sake of countrymen they regard as fanatic.

And yet they certainly do not want to fight Judeans for the sake of Palestinians--certainly not without strong international backing, even pressure, to do so; not without the commitment of international forces and investment to help make the lines of division in Jerusalem permeable and the unemployed of Jerusalem hopeful. They know terrorism will continue whatever happens. They have to see peace as something that means an inspiring, over-arching gain worth fighting for, a way of joining the with the world--or of not being shunned by it--not some temporary respite they get by "giving up" territory or, worse, fighting other Jews to force them to give up territory. Arguably, they tried this in Gaza--anyway, they can't go it alone anymore.

So Rice can put away her copy of Getting To Yes, and take out her copy of The Prince. We need more Dr. Kissinger, less Dr. Phil. Of course, we can also wait until we have a new prime minister and a new president. But it won't be any different for them.

17 comments:

Anonymous
said...

"After all, all that remains of the Israeli Left is a bunch of grey-haired retirees who slowly mix sugar into their tea at two coffee shops in Tel Aviv. While doing this, they unenthusiastically argue about who will be the one to travel to the next peace conference in Zurich in order to nibble on sweet croissants while saying unimportant things to unimportant people, who ultimately will publish unimportant decisions."

My jaw hit the floor when I read this in the Chicago Tribune from Tzipi Livni:

"The peace process is not and should not be affected by any kind of settlement activities. The role of leaders is to try and find a way to live in peace in the future, and [i]not to let any kind of noises that relate to the situation on the ground these days to enter the negotiation room[/i]."

Should not be affected by...the situation on the ground?! To the Palestinians settlements are acts of war. So to suggest they're irrelevant to the real issue says a great deal about Livni's attitude to the nature of any peace.

Dr Avishai stated:------------------------THE PALESTINIANS VIEW Arab Jerusalem--its history and charisma--as the organizing symbol (or, at least, the indispensable differentiator) of Palestinian nationalism. They see the ancient mosques, which sit on the Noble Sanctuary, as the focus of their religious piety-------------------------

For a Palestinian Muslim, (and the vast majority of Palestinians define themselves as Muslim , regardless of their level of religious observation, this statement is simply untrue. The focues of their piety is Mecca and Medina. Jerusalem has a lower rank in the Muslim heierarchy. It is well known that Palestinian kids play soccer on the grounds of their "Noble Sanctuary", so this leads me to question exactly how much "awe and piety" they feel for the place. In any event, they face Mecca when they pray, not Jerusalem. Jerusalem under Jordanian rule was undeveloped and a backwater.

I find it interesting that Dr Avishai's secular friends are so alienated from Jerusalem. It is unfortunate, but they represent a small minority of the Israeli population. While Dr Avishai is constantly reminding us that they are the "elite" and thus, their viewpoints are more "progressive" and thus more "important" than those of the rest of us, they do not dictate the way most Israelis feel. Polls consistently show that a large majority of Israelis oppose redividing the city. Everyone knows that a political division of the city MUST inevitably lead to a physical redivision of the city and that places that I presume Dr Avishai would not want to compromise on, such as the Western Wall, would become vulnerable to violence since the approaches to it and the areas around it would be under hostile Palestinian control. Perhaps many "progressives" quietly feel such a thing, the uprooting of Jews from their holiest places, would be a positive thing, after all, their Zionism was not based on Jewish tradition, but on creating a "New Jew" who was not rooted in this tradition. The Six-Day War brought Israelis back into contact with their Biblical roots, causing the rise of religious conciousness which secularists and "Hebrew Republicans" (i.e. advocates of Dr Avishai's "Hebrew Republic") lament. They seem to feel that if Jews are prevented, either officially or through threats and violence, from going to their holy places, they will end up giving up their religious feelings, which is one of the proclaimed goals of the Hebrew Republic.

The question is, does this secular elite which wants to divide Jerusalem have the political power to do so? The majority of Israeli oppose it, so the hope seems to be that outside forces, such as the US, will impose this division. Would Israelis and the rest of the Jewish world stand by and let this catastrophe occur?

Dr Avishai said:-----------And yet they certainly do not want to fight Judeans for the sake of Palestinians--certainly not without strong international backing, even pressure, to do so; not without the commitment of international forces and investment to help make the lines of division in Jerusalem permeable and the unemployed of Jerusalem hopeful. They know terrorism will continue whatever happens. ------------------------

This is a fascinating paragraph, full of contradictions. Let me understand....Israelis don't want to fight other Israelis, unless the Americans "pressure them" to, then they will be happy to do it, is that right?Also...Jerusalem will be divided politically, but it is going to "flourish" in this condition, right? How is this going to happen....when Israel gives up control of the Arab parts of the city, terrorist organizations will move in and use them as bases to fire on Jewish neighborhoods or to dispatch terrorists to the Jewish areas. This means checkpoints, similar to the security wall, which is currently OUTSIDE the city, will move into the CENTER of the city. East Jerusalem Arabs who now work in West Jerusalem and who can freely go there every day will now have to stop at a checkpoint and undergo lengthy security checks. How is this going to give "hope to the unemployed"? Jewish employers will be more reluctant to hire Arabs since getting to work will be much more problematic. And how will tourism flourish if the city is much more insecure? Will that encourage tourism or discourage it?Thus, we see you can't have "permeable lines" and security at the same time. The crossing points will be an international border and all countries must control their borders, particulary in the case of having Israel bordered by a hostile Palestinian state. After all, you yourself admit "terrorism will continue". Of course we have the famous panacea suggested: International forces. Well, I can give you an example of a "united city with permeable borders" under multinational forces....Berlin from 1945-1990. How did that work out? The international forces will have differing interests, and if there is an outbreak of tension, can Israel assume that they will do everything they can to prevent violence and Jewish access to holy sites on the Arab side, including the Western Wall.

I don't really believe anyone who advocates such a preposterous plan really thinks "Jerusalem will remain united but under divided administration". I think those who advocate this know very well the city will be divided along hostile lines, and that Jews will no longer be able to go to the Western Wall and other holy places on the Arab side. And I think that suits these "progressive" Jews just fine. It is part of their hidden agenda of reconstituting the "New Jew".

"...For a Palestinian Muslim, (and the vast majority of Palestinians define themselves as Muslim , regardless of their level of religious observation, this statement is simply untrue. The focues of their piety is Mecca and Medina. Jerusalem has a lower rank in the Muslim heierarchy. It is well known that Palestinian kids play soccer on the grounds of their "Noble Sanctuary", so this leads me to question exactly how much "awe and piety" they feel for the place. In any event, they face Mecca when they pray, not Jerusalem. For a Palestinian Muslim, (and the vast majority of Palestinians define themselves as Muslim , regardless of their level of religious observation, this statement is simply untrue. The focues of their piety is Mecca and Medina. Jerusalem has a lower rank in the Muslim heierarchy. It is well known that Palestinian kids play soccer on the grounds of their "Noble Sanctuary", so this leads me to question exactly how much "awe and piety" they feel for the place. In any event, they face Mecca when they pray, not Jerusalem. Jerusalem under Jordanian rule was undeveloped and a backwater."

Interesting. While not being a muslim yourself and possessing a knowledge of Islam that is superficial at best, while not having any contact with muslims, socially or otherwise beyond that which is absolutley necessary, you have no problem constructing strawmen with nothing more than the sub-standard ingredients of self-serving conjecture and speculation. Postulations driven by the narrow concerns (ie-perpetuating the monopoly on political power currently held by the haredi and ultra-orthodox in Jerusalem) of a minority trying to conflate its self-aggrandizing agenda with Judaic fealty, as being in the interests of the state and the majority of its citizenry.

"...Jerusalem under Jordanian rule was undeveloped and a backwater."

This is a false argument. If Jerusalem was a backwater during Jordanian rule, it had less to do with the wishes of Jerusalem arabs and more to do with the Hashemeite regime in Amman that wished it to be so.

"...Polls consistently show that a large majority of Israelis oppose redividing the city."

Apparently, not as consistent as you would have us believe;

"...Although prospects for new talks have faded, 58% of Israelis today are prepared to make concessions on Jerusalem if that would end fighting with the Palestinians, according to a Jerusalem Institute poll. Various surveys over the last decade show steady growth in that position among Israelis.

By contrast, three-quarters of religious Jews, a category that includes haredim, are opposed."

"...I find it interesting that Dr Avishai's secular friends are so alienated from Jerusalem. It is unfortunate, but they represent a small minority of the Israeli population."

"...Israeli analysts say one reason many Israelis would accept dividing Jerusalem is their estrangement from the city. The Jerusalem Institute poll showed that nearly two-thirds of Israelis thought of their capital as "a city of the ultra-Orthodox," nearly half said it was poor, and one-third considered it "scary to live in."

Fact-Muslims pray towards Mecca, not Jerusalem. Even those who are Palestinians pray towards Mecca.

Fact-Kids play soccer on the Temple Mount. Of course, we now have to ask if they play soccer in the Grand Mosque of Mecca. I don't know, but I rather doubt it.

Fact-ALL the polls I have seen show a large majority against dividing Jerusalem. I don't know what this poll you are presenting is. Many polls, especially those comissioned by people with a particular interest in a particular outcome will present skewed results, and I suspect the poll you are presenting is one of them. Of course you ignored the clincher "they would support concessions IF it would lead to peace". Dr Avishai himself said dividing the city wouldn't lead to peace (i.e. "terrorism will continue") which is what most Israelis think, so that really puts the significance of the result into question.

Fact: The fact that Muslims pray toward Mecca does not support your assertion that you have an ecumenical understanding of Islam to the extent that you comprehend the nature of the import that muslims place on Jerusalem. Nor does it speak to the economic and societal importance that the local arab population lends to it.

Fact: Jewish kids rough house at the wailing wall. Does that reduce its spiritual importance to the rest of us?

"...Many polls, especially those comissioned by people with a particular interest in a particular outcome will present skewed results"

Thats not going to fly. In any event its a sword that cuts both ways. By claiming that the polls of others are skewed, you are expecting the rest of us to infer that yours are not. Please. BTW, the fact that you never heard of a poll(I gave you the link. Now you've heard of it, sparky)is not a function of its validity. It is a function of your lack of erudition.

Since we already understand that without an acomadation re. Jerusalem, there wil be no discussion of peace, let alone the thing itself, the argument; if it "leads to peace" is irrelevant.

You are sadly mistaken if you think the majority of Israeli Jews and world Jewry are going to stand by while Jerusalem is DESTROYED, (because political division of the city will destroy it, as I have indicate). Now, you have your phony polls which say that supposedly most "progressive" Jews don't care, and would even view such a thing as positive, but, as I said, this is a minority.

Note how both you and Dr Avishai take the view that the Palestinians have "noble religious and national aspirations", whereas at the same time you claim "most Jews" don't care about it, and only care about living in Tel Aviv and making as much money as possible, which of course, jibes with traditional antisemitic portrayals of Jews as people without principles who only care about making as much money as possible (the "Hebrew Republic"'s denizens) and who would sell their grandmother if the price is right. I am telling you the Jewish people is NOT like this and will not sell its Jerusalem birthright for anything.

Anyway, what "roughhousing" at the Kotel? The authorities at the Kotel allow such a thing, like the Waqf allows soccer games? I will not accept your "moral equivalency" in which you say we are no different than them and everthing they do we do and vice versa.

"...You are sadly mistaken if you think the majority of Israeli Jews and world Jewry are going to stand by while Jerusalem is DESTROYED"

Come off your soap box, sweetheart. Contrary to popular belief, and despite the intrigues of such illustrious yids as Adelson & Bronfman, world jewry WILL NOT have a say re. the divison of Jerusalem or any other territorial concessions that the State of Israel might make during the course of peace negotiations.

"...Now, you have your phony polls which say that supposedly most "progressive" Jews don't care, and would even view such a thing as positive, but, as I said, this is a minority."

So, we've moved passed debate and have now entered the realm of polemics and agit-prop. That didn't take long, eh sparky? What makes the poll phony? The fact that it doesn't validate your politics? I'm more inclined to question the veracity and validity of an ideology and its advocates that attempt to turn a debate into some kind of half-assed popularity contest when confronted by empirical facts and figures. Apparently, the LA Times and found the above poll to be valid enough to print, not to mention the rest of the papers across the country who picked up and ran the column in syndication. These are well known and respected publications. But leaving all that aside for the moment, lets examine the source, shall we?

Re. The Jerusalem Institute For Israel Studies.

"...The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies (JIIS) is an independent, non-profit organization which acts as a bridge between the academic and the practical. Founded in 1978 and maintaining a balance of highly qualified academics and practitioners, the JIIS provides a constant flow of relevant, accurate, and in-depth data, policy papers, and professional analyses for use by decision-makers, researchers, and the general public. Its studies serve as a valuable resource for a variety of governmental bodies, public institutions, and civil organizations."

http://www.jiis.org.il/content.asp?freePageID=9

Any organization can only be the sum of its parts. Lets see, self-hating Jewish academics or ISRAELI CITIZENS, who happen to be well respected public servants, world renowned intellects and professionals in their field?

Heres a sampling of their resaerch staff that would've been responsible for compiling the data for the poll in question;

I'm willing to bet that most people would be satisfied that the numbers of this poll had been well researched and the people involved could be trusted to have exercised all due dilligence in doing so. So whats your source? Aish HaTorah, Kahane Chai, and Arutz Sheva?

So the poll is phony because....? Why don't you do everybody a favor. Either put up or shut-up. If you can prove that the poll is fake, than do so. If you have poll numbers that seemingly refute those that have been presented, than lets see them with the appropriate links. As previously mentioned, to state that the poll is phony for no other reason than the fact that you say so, speaks to your insecurities. Indeed, it highlights the weakness of a position based on nothing more important than envy and resentment toward the people that built the state, and continue to do so despite the corrupt and byzantine machinations of the denizens of Chelm.

"...Anyway, what "roughhousing" at the Kotel? The authorities at the Kotel allow such a thing, like the Waqf allows soccer games? I will not accept your "moral equivalency" in which you say we are no different than them and everthing they do we do and vice versa."

Cut the crap. You're smarter than that. You know as well as I do, the Kotel is a circus. I alawys see kids of Isarelis and tourists running all over the plaza, that is, when its not filled with every carnival barker and charlatan trying to pass himself off as a talmud scholar.

"...I will not accept your "moral equivalency" in which you say we are no different than them and everthing they do we do and vice versa."

As well you shoudn't. Indeed. Contrary to your diatribe, I believe that our behaviour should not be contingent upon theirs. If we divide Jerusalem, it will be because it is beneficial to Israel as a whole, not necessarily because its good for the Arabs. Conversly, If we don't split Jerusalem, it will not be for the reason that American Jews don't like it or because a pathetic, fascist, mysogynistic, child-raping minority will lose political power.

I just attended the annual Jerusalem City of David Archaeology conference which is open to the public. It is held right in the heart of the Biblical City of David. Over 1000 people attended, of whom a large percentage were non-religious. Obviously they were part of the group of 2/3 of peope who don't view Jerusalem as "scary". I stand by what I said that Dr Avisha's and Shoded Yam-Pirate's assertion that "secular Israelis" don't care about Jerusalem and would just as soon get rid of it is FALSE.

"...I just attended the annual Jerusalem City of David Archaeology conference which is open to the public. It is held right in the heart of the Biblical City of David. Over 1000 people attended, of whom a large percentage were non-religious. Obviously they were part of the group of 2/3 of peope who don't view Jerusalem as "scary"."

Thats it? That trivial anecdote is your proof that Bernie is wrong? How much you wanna bet if they held a porno convention at the King David, with Jenna Jameson as the keynote speaker, you could probably convince at least 5,000 secular Israelis to show up (not to mention a few haredi sitting in the back, hiding behind newspapers). Look, nobody likes going to Newark either, but if they have a worthwhile reason to be there, they'll grin and bear it.

Regardless of what you and Dr Avishai say, Jews are no less (and actually much more) attached to Jerusalem than the Palestinians, and they are not going to give it up. You are the one with the "anecdotal stories" with your meaningless poll that was commissioned in order to influence public opinion by claiming FALSELY that "Israelis don't care about Jerusalem so we can force them to give it up". The list you made of members of that Institute prove what I said...it is a politically motivated group and the poll results are falsely presented as supporting their side. They are not disinterested scientists merely interested in a objective view of public opinion...they are attempting to influence it. They won't succeed.

"... Jews are no less (and actually much more) attached to Jerusalem than the Palestinians, and they are not going to give it up."

No one said any thing about "giving it up". We're talking about sharing it. Though for a xenophobe who hides his racism and bigotry behind a halachic facade of smoke and mirrors, I'm not surprised that Tevya the Milkman would characterize it as such.

"... You are the one with the "anecdotal stories" with your meaningless poll that was commissioned in order to influence public opinion by claiming FALSELY that "Israelis don't care about Jerusalem so we can force them to give it up". The list you made of members of that Institute prove what I said...it is a politically motivated group and the poll results are falsely presented as supporting their side."

I didn't know it was going to be necessary to review 8th grade vocabulary words. Do you understand the meaning of the word; "anecdotal"? Okay Mr. Ben David, lets open a dictionary, shall we?

Now, unless you perceive the dictionary as having a liberal agenda, I think we can safely say, (and Dr Avishai please excuse my french)that your full of shit.

"...The list you made of members of that Institute prove what I said...it is a politically motivated group and the poll results are falsely presented as supporting their side."

So lets see. By politically motivated, you mean anybody with a college education, anybody who profers answers that you either cannot comprehend or chose not to. This has become par for the course for anyone too lazy or too stupid to grasp complex truths. Tell me, are you a creationist as well? It wouldn't surprise me.

I don't feel like having this conversation forever. Judging by the fact that you won't produce any evidence that substantiates your assertions, I can only deduce that you cannot. All the polemics and propagnda aren't going to change that. When you can prove that the presented numbers are false, let me know. Until then you and the rest of the ghetto are just a bunch of shtetl yids with penis envy.

Praise for The Hebrew Republic

"Inspired and highly informative: a stunningly fresh narrative of a century old conflict."

Amos Elon, Author of The Pity of it All, Herzl, and The Israelis

“Avishai’s book is essential reading for anyone seeking to understand not only the genuine complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but also the real prospects for a sane and peaceful outcome."

Dov Frohman, Founding CEO, Intel-Israel

"During the past two decades, Professor Bernard Avishai has emerged as one of the most eloquent and penetrating analysts of the Israeli scene: of its politics, international relations, religious confrontations, and social fabric; of its national triumphs and failures; of its collective hopes and looming perils. This volume can only add to Avishai's reputation. The Hebrew Republic is indispensable reading even for veteran students of the Jewish State."

Prof. Howard M. Sachar, author of A History of Israel

"If justice and reason still count for anything, "The Hebrew Republic" will profoundly change the Middle East conversation, both here and in Israel. If the notions of a Jewish state and a democratic society sit uneasily together -- if they are, in some sense, thesis and antithesis -- then Bernard Avishai has brilliantly deliniated the indispensable synthesis. This is an exciting and supremely important book."

Hendrik Hertzberg, Senior Editor and Staff Writer, The New Yorker

“Anyone who cares about Israel, the Palestinians, or peace should read The Hebrew Republic—a comprehensive analysis, a compelling vision, a wrenching cri de coeur. Of all the brilliant, brave voices heard here—and there are many—none is as indispensable as Avishai’s, with this book, has now become.”

James Carroll, Author of Constantine’s Sword and House of War

“Bernard Avishai offers a fascinating solution to Israel's existential dilemma: the choice between an ethno-national state, which discriminates against its many non-Jewish citizens, or a binational state that loses its Jewish nature. The book scrutinizes the flaws of Israeli democracy, but is written with a deep love, and provides an upbeat and highly original analysis of the potential of Israel’s new economy. It is a must for anybody who wants to understand today's Israel.”

Prof. Yoram Peri, Head of the Rothschild Caesarea School of Communication, Tel Aviv University, Author of Generals in the Cabinet Room

"The central issue in bringing about peace in the Middle East is whether Israel and the Israelis can find their place in the region where they have carved out their homeland in a manner that is acceptable to others in the region, within and beyond their borders. Bernard Avishai confronts Israelis with the fundamental questions, which only they can answer, and which they cannot indefinitely turn their backs on, about who and what they are. It is hard to imagine clever third-party efforts succeeding as long as these questions remain unanswered. He has made a lucid contribution to solving one of the great problems of our time.”

Amb. Alvaro de Soto, Former UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process